On Aug 2, 6:44pm, tshiozak@netbsd.org ("T.SHIOZAKI") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: iconv(3) prototype
| I am sorry, I missed this mail. Should I revert the changes?
|
| Or, I guess there is the way that I will leave the change,
| and add the mention about the weirdness of the POSIX specification
| to the BUGS section of iconv(3).
Just to be clear here (sorry no coffee). I meant that we should leave
the prototype the way it is now:
size_t iconv __P((iconv_t, char ** __restrict,
size_t * __restrict, char ** __restrict,
size_t * __restrict));
add the reasoning in the bugs section, and ask Klaus to discuss changing
it to const char **restrict in the POSIX committee meetings.
christos